A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ACists are not anarchists no matter how much they like to tag the wikipedia pages. There is no legitimacy to a property claim in a truly free society unless it is obtained through cooperation with others.

[/ QUOTE ]

First note that the second part of this paragraph, if true, does not prove the first half, nor does it imply it.

But let's go with it.

If there's no legitimacy without voluntary cooperation, then the claim that "everyone" owns resource X is ALSO illegitimate without voluntary cooperation. Just because YOU say everyone owns it (or that NOBODY owns it) doesn't mean that's true, especially if I disagree with you.

Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I say doesn't really matter. Free societies can be many things for many people, the only really free thing me and you could do was to for property was to cooperate to work out a working solution within the society we lived in, and most likely also together with that society.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If "everyone owns everything" then you've already got a concept of property.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope, you have a negation of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You can't have it both ways. If nobody owns resource X, then nobody has any legitimate reason to complain when resource X is consumed. If someone does have a right to resource X, than that person has an ownership interest in that resource.

[/ QUOTE ] You are engaging in sophistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTFLOLBBQ.

Yes, pointing out your sophistry is itself sophistry. Geez.

[ QUOTE ]
Resource Air is a common resource, meaning it belongs to everybody and nobody owns it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your mind. Which is it?

[ QUOTE ]
If someone claims that he owns the Air (whether the whole planet's air or the wind passing over his farm), then that person is stealing from everybody else -- even though nobody else has laid claim to the air!

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because simple decree doesn't equal ownership.

I OWN YANKEE STADIUM, because I say so.

Have I stolen Yankee Stadium?

[ QUOTE ]
Classical anarchists simply expand this notion of common ownership to almost everything. So, according to them, an individual stating that he "owns the forest outside Paris" is an individual who is a thief. Even if nobody else has claimed to be the forest's owner. Their reasoning is mostly archetypally Christian, radically libertine and anthropo-centric.

Wait, I thought all this was mere rhetoric for you. I see now that you're ready to engage in some meaty arguments. Goody.

[/ QUOTE ]

This IS rhetoric. :|

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people who claim property is theft are just generating slogans.

[/ QUOTE ] "Generating slogans" could just as easily be said of your lot too, the ACists.

[/ QUOTE ]

My lot? Other people do it, so you want to accuse me of doing it?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, ACists do it too, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

"too"? Where have *I* done it?

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I believe, i.e. that ACists discuss things with generalities, respond to questions with more questions and use a lot of sloganeering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Generalities? Your entire paragraph there complaining about generalities IS NOTHING BUT GENERALITIES. NOT ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC ITEM. But *I* am the one engaging in sophistry. Right.

Sloganeering? Like "property is theft"???

[ QUOTE ]
The important thing is that the classics were not merely "sloganeering". They had built up quite a case. One needs to go the gist of their arguments and try to refute them. Not dismiss the slogans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these arguments have been quite roundly refuted, by myself and others, in this forum a number of times. Noting the lack of recognition of scarcity in these arguments is IMO more than enough to show they are useless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If exposing inconsistent but slickly-phrased arguments is condescending and trollish, then guilty as charged.

[/ QUOTE ] So far you have done nothing of the sort. I briefly reported what the classics of anarchism believed. You dismissed them all as mere producers of slogans. You exposed nothing but contempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the burden of proof is upon the party making a claim. If you want to claim property is theft, you're going to have to back that claim up. You haven't done so, so until you have, I'll just stick with the position that it's empty rhetoric (e.g. slogans).

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and you asked one question, something like "who's the owner of all that public property". (Only it was rhetorical - right.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the answer?

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]

ZOMGWTFLOLBBQ.

Yes, pointing out your sophistry is itself sophistry. Geez.

[/ QUOTE ] Pointing out with specific examples what the classics of anarchism were all about is not sophistry. Evading the discussion by asking (your words) "rhetorical question, hoping someone would take the bait" is an exercise in sophistry. Also a little trollish.

Additionally, it is dishonest to set up imaginary and unrelated tasks to the other party and then accusing it of avoiding them. I'm not supporting the position of the classics of anarchism. I'm trying to present their case, as best as I can. You ask me to prove that "property is theft", while I'm presenting why they claimed this. This is dishonest. It's like I'm presenting the reasons Bush had to invade Iraq and you ask me to prove there were valid reasons to invade Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Resource Air is a common resource, meaning it belongs to everybody and nobody owns it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your mind. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]If everybody owns the Air, then nobody owns it exclusively. A river's water belongs to everybody because no one alone owns it. At least, this is the way things should be, according to the Anarchists.

BTW, your kind of "questions" is what sophistry is all about. Fake insightfulness and simplistic thinking. I can see where this is going.

[ QUOTE ]
Simple decree doesn't equal ownership.

I OWN YANKEE STADIUM, because I say so.

Have I stolen Yankee Stadium?

[/ QUOTE ] Nope, you haven't.

But if you attempt to take over Yankee Stadium (say on the strength of your armed band of followers), the Yankee Stadium owner is sure to have a few arguments against that.

But forget Yankee Stadium --and Fenway too. You avoid the plain and basic premise of the classical Anarchists. Start with Air. Saying you "own the Air" would be laughably stupid. It would be an unenforceable decree. However, if you attempt to truly take over the Air (say by forcing your fellow citizens to pay an Air Tax, on the strength of your armed band of followers), then you are taking over for yourself something that belongs to everybody.

The Anarchists take this up all the way to almost everything that can be "owned" by Man and declare that, since all those things are supposed to be as common to everyone as Air or Water, trying to own any one of them exclusively for oneself amounts to thievery.

[ QUOTE ]
I think these arguments have been quite roundly refuted, by myself and others, in this forum a number of times. Noting the lack of recognition of scarcity in these arguments is IMO more than enough to show they are useless.

[/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. If you'd then care to point out some links to those posts, I'd be obliged. I am very keen to learn where the line is drawn. As a lifelong capitalist, I have no clue where. I agree with the Anarchists about the Air, but I don't agree with them about T-Bills.

But where is the demarcation? Where are those posts?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and you asked one question, something like "who's the owner of all that public property". (Only it was rhetorical - right.)

[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the answer?

[/ QUOTE ]Uh, the public ?

And because I know you're gonna ask "who's the public?", [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] I'm telling you now, that means everybody. (Your favorite design must be the circle.)

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think people can only have their way at the expense of other

[/ QUOTE ] No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'. It is true, however, that in some cases one can only have there way at the expense of another (e.g. either you are the boss or I am the boss, abortion laws, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ] Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people. The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate is that, when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time. Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[ QUOTE ]
If different firms were competing the incentive would be for cooperation and most likely respect for private property. Without the state, everyone must bare their own costs and cant externalize the cost onto the citizenry. This means war is very costly and the major incentive will be to cooperate. Different capitalist firms in todays world dont bother solving disputes with other firms violently and the reasoning isnt necessarily because of the government

[/ QUOTE ] This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology). You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.
[ QUOTE ]

One more point is the government proclaims a monopoly on force, but this isnt entirely true. The government creates and maintains mob groups for example.

[/ QUOTE ] The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.

[ QUOTE ]
You also seem to think there is more a peaceful scenario by the government having a monopoly on force rather than that power being dispersed

[/ QUOTE ] Indeed I do. But In fact, I argued for it, and empirical evidence strongly supports my view.

[ QUOTE ]
If hundred people are standing by a bridge in a democracy and 51 say jump and 49 say no, then the 49 who refuse are pushed over the edge. In anarchy, 51 will have a common interest, 49 will have a common interest, but since there is no majority rules, 51 will jump and 49 will leave.

[/ QUOTE ] No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off, in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off; or, if the 49 are more powerful, they will prevent the 51 from jumping off. You can call the latter situation "not anarchy" if you want, but what is relevant, politically speaking, is not what the concept of anarchy is, but what the reality and consequences of an anarchical society would be.

[foal]

good post

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't. I rely on the trivial truth that sometimes 'people can have their way at the expense of another'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments make this more so. We aren't comparing anarchy to utopia. We are comparing anarchy to coercive governments.

[ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the status quo of all government around the world. Again, you are saying the worst is we descend into what we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority likely sees this as legitimate but there is nothing inherently legitimate about democracy. I dont view democracy as legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of democracy is a violent procedure for one. Secondly, democracy is inherently stupid because one side keeps entirely winning over the other. The fact that more than one side gets the chance to be dictator for a while is not a good thing just because they rotate.

Nearly half the country didnt want to go to war and they were forced to fund and keep that war going. Half the country didnt want to be spied on. Are we better of letting those who want to sacrifice their liberty for security do so and those that dont not or is it preferable that we go through stages of having no government security then a new interval of extreme government security and back and forth into the future?

[ QUOTE ]
Think of the 2000 presidential election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your still only talking about the two major groups that monopolize the system. minorities have never had a say and will likely not into the future.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the classic ACist reply to the civil warfare objection, but it is woefully inadequate, for (among other reasons) it presupposes that people are motivated solely by monetary gains. But the goals of most groups I have in mind here are not about increasing monetary gains...they are those who want to bring about theocracy, or want power and high relative status for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons, or a conception of distributive justice (or any ideology).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you mean like George Bush or Stalin. If they want to try fight a war for whatever purpose there is no doubt that the wars are less likely to happen when people have to bare the full cost. Do you think Iraq was more or less likely to happen under the assumption that the neocons had to fund the war on their own?

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying "But they will have less of X if they fight"...but what they want is Y or Z, and they could care less if they lose every last ounce of X trying to get Y or Z, which is what most matters to them. So your argument is a non-sequitur.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point. Governments make this much more likely. People can sacrifice things but the point is in a free market they must make sacrifices. When people thought should we goto war in iraq, no said oh this will cost me 30,000 plus etc. The decision was made costs aside. When costs are taken into account much less wars will be fought.

[ QUOTE ]

Another reason this argument is inadequate is that it presupposes that people are 'rational' in some sense; that is, not only do they seek profit, but they seek it in the manner which is truly the best way to maximize it; yet the mere fact that most businesses fail demonstrates that it is not the case. Even if it would *really be unprofitable for a firm to engage in violence, we can expect that many businesses would not realize this and would in fact try to increase profits via force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not comparing the result to government but rather to utopia. If people are irrational this is true for a governed world as well and we are way worse off with all that power in the hands of irrational people.

[ QUOTE ]
The gov't does so for its own purposes, and if the mob groups do not further the purposes

In other words, we should see your supposed mob groups as part of, an example of, the gov'ts monopoly on force, not as a counterexample to that monopoly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must be reading this wrong because i cant understand. Can you rephrase please?

[ QUOTE ]
No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off

[/ QUOTE ]

When the country stood over the bridge and said are we going to jump into this war in iraq, what happened to those that said i dont want lend my support?

[ QUOTE ]
in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is important enough. The 49 can also defend themselves. In democracy the issue need not be important. Minorities are thrown off the bridge every day.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Pointing out with specific examples what the classics of anarchism were all about is not sophistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your goal is to demonstrate that a newer version of "anarchy" isn't "anarchy" because of this, it most certainly is. Analogy time!

The earliest group to call themselves anarchists had a specific view towards property. Thus, other groups that come later with different views towards property are not anarchists.

The U.S. was the original modern democracy. At its creation, slavery was legal in the U.S. Thus, any country which has made slavery illegal is not a modern democracy.

The first cola beverages included cocaine. Thus, cola beverages that do not include cocaine are not truly cola beverages.

The original Star Trek starred William Shatner. Thus, anything that does not star William Shatner is not Star Trek.

Do I need to go on? I could seriously make thousands of these, all equally dumb.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So far as i can see, the worst you can say about anarchy is that it descends into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people. The beauty of a democracy which is seen as legitimate is that, when one side loses, they know that the loss is temporary and/or place value in the procedures for solving disputes themselves, and that there are non-violent procedural ways of trying to go ahead and attempt to gain power next time. Think of the 2000 presidential election.


[/ QUOTE ]

Moorobot,

I too think the concept of the "legitimate force" is extremely important to ordinary citizens. But why does this necessitate democracy? And even if that perception exists, why does that necessarily mean the government is admirable? You know the standard argument about the uselessness of a single vote - using probability, there is a very small chance that a single vote could ever change the outcome of a democratic election.

But it seems that people love the CONCEPT of democracy nevertheless. Maybe the illusion of legitimacy is more important than normative legitimacy itself. And why is that laudable? Kim Jong Il rules as a demi-god within his culture of personality in North Korea, but a legitimate one who has condemned his people to backwardness and want.

So the most a thoughtful person could assert is that "legitimacy" is at best a necessary, not sufficient condition for proper "governance". According to libertarians, perhaps there is a better trade-off between legitimacy and purely materialistic considerations (being wealthier) because an ideal designer would be willing to make more trade-offs between the former in favor of the latter, from our reactions to theocratic and dictatorial examples around the world.

And according to ACists, they completely refuse this reasoning in terms of their science of praxeology. According to them, legitimacy can have no meaning once ONE person rejects their governance as "illegitimate". Any concept of enforcing "legitimacy" to them is coercion, no matter how many others agree. I think that's hopelessly idealistic too, but I think your argument, keeping in mind their moral universe, fails. It's also disturbing when you consider self-deception is a large part of that concept of legitimacy, and self-deception not something that many moral philosophies would encourage, even on a macro scale.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Or civil war. Or fascist communism or capitalism. Or theocracy. Depends on who has the most guns and people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the status quo of all government around the world. Again, you are saying the worst is we descend into what we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Civil war, theocracy, and/or fascist communism is what we have now? I believe by 'we' he is referring to democratic western governments and if so then that's far from true.

[ QUOTE ]

The majority likely sees this as legitimate but there is nothing inherently legitimate about democracy. I dont view democracy as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately there's nothing that's inherently legitimate. Some things can be pragmatically legitimate though.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that more than one side gets the chance to be dictator for a while is not a good thing just because they rotate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Calling it a dictatorship is just silly hyperbole. There is a thing called division of power including the balance of government branches and of local, state and federal authority. There is also such a thing as government accountability. We impeached Nixon and members of the federal legistature have been arrested. Law enforcement officers have been punished for abusing their power.

I agree that there are plenty of problems that occur in democracies due to human stupidity, laziness and callousness, but such human flaws will cause plenty of problems with or without government. In democracy at least those too busy to do anything themselves can affect change with their votes.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If hundred people are standing by a bridge in a democracy and 51 say jump and 49 say no, then the 49 who refuse are pushed over the edge. In anarchy, 51 will have a common interest, 49 will have a common interest, but since there is no majority rules, 51 will jump and 49 will leave.

[/ QUOTE ] No. In most cases in democracy the 51 THREATEN to throw the 49 off,

[/ QUOTE ]

What? Threaten? The majority has not merely threatened to prohibit the minority from using drugs, or from marrying who they want. The majority has not threatened to make the minority pay for wars. These things ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

In anarchy, those who want to get together and jump can do so. And those who don't simply don't.

[ QUOTE ]
in anarchy, if the issue is important enough, they WILL throw them off; or, if the 49 are more powerful, they will prevent the 51 from jumping off. You can call the latter situation "not anarchy" if you want, but what is relevant, politically speaking, is not what the concept of anarchy is, but what the reality and consequences of an anarchical society would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people might get to do what they want?